whateverdude Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Bottom line is that taxes have to be raised. The Dems have a lot going for them heading into the 2012 elections. No bottom line is WE MUST STOP THE SPENDING. Would a crack head payoff his rent or just go buy more crack if you gave him more money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 No bottom line is WE MUST STOP THE SPENDING. Would a crack head payoff his rent or just go buy more crack if you gave him more money? Spending is just PART of the deal. Look at the big picture. Balancing are wreck of an economy means that everything should be dealt with... Reforming Medicare Reforming Social Security CUTTING Defense Spending Making some cuts in social programs Raising Taxes on the wealthiest few percent Closing corporate tax loop holes as well as raising their rates EVERYTHING must be on table. Not just portions like the Republicans want or creating some crappy voucher system that won't work and kills Medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 (edited) Spending is just PART of the deal. Look at the big picture. Balancing are wreck of an economy means that everything should be dealt with... Reforming Medicare Reforming Social Security CUTTING Defense Spending Making some cuts in social programs Raising Taxes on the wealthiest few percent Closing corporate tax loop holes as well as raising their rates EVERYTHING must be on table. Not just portions like the Republicans want or creating some crappy voucher system that won't work and kills Medicare. So you want to "balance the economy" whatever THAT means by taking money OUT of the private sector for both individuals and corporations. Plus, you want to keep spending where it is, gut defense spending and raise the corporate tax rate. There he is...pbills Hu Jintao. Edited April 16, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 So you want to "balance the economy" whatever THAT means by taking money OUT of the private sector for both individuals and corporations. Plus, you want to keep spending where it is, gut defense spending and raise the corporate tax rate. There he is...pbills Hu Jintao. WOW... did I say I want to keep spending where it is? Ummmmm,no. Hence saying "Spending is just PART of the deal". Do I want to raise taxes on the super wealthy and close loop holes for corporations... yes. When they have been enjoying the lowest rates since what 1955, they can be raised. Or are we afraid to deal with them in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 WOW... did I say I want to keep spending where it is? Ummmmm,no. Hence saying "Spending is just PART of the deal". Do I want to raise taxes on the super wealthy and close loop holes for corporations... yes. When they have been enjoying the lowest rates since what 1955, they can be raised. Or are we afraid to deal with them in this case? Keeping spending where it's at did seem to be part of your plan; if it isn't, cool. I'd like to see a lot (the majority) of corporate loopholes closed, but would also like to see the nominal rate dropped. Raising taxes on the 'super wealthy' won't come close to balancing the budget unless spending is significantly curtailed and/or you have a much broader definition of the 'super wealthy' than is predominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 WOW... did I say I want to keep spending where it is? Ummmmm,no. Hence saying "Spending is just PART of the deal". Do I want to raise taxes on the super wealthy and close loop holes for corporations... yes. When they have been enjoying the lowest rates since what 1955, they can be raised. Or are we afraid to deal with them in this case? You keep going on and on about corporate taxes and loopholes. Unless you take ZERO deductions, yourself......for your house, your kids (assuming you have either) and anything else...then shut the !@#$ up becuase otherwise youre being a total hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 You keep going on and on about corporate taxes and loopholes. Unless you take ZERO deductions, yourself......for your house, your kids (assuming you have either) and anything else...then shut the !@#$ up becuase otherwise youre being a total hypocrite. You mean like this guy? He avoided paying taxes on over $650,000.00 last year. Oh, the horror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 Spending is just PART of the deal. Look at the big picture. Balancing are wreck of an economy means that everything should be dealt with... Reforming Medicare Reforming Social Security CUTTING Defense Spending Making some cuts in social programs Raising Taxes on the wealthiest few percent Closing corporate tax loop holes as well as raising their rates EVERYTHING must be on table. Not just portions like the Republicans want or creating some crappy voucher system that won't work and kills Medicare. Uh, I've seen you spell "our" this way before. There is a difference. I'd explain it to you but you would just probably respond with something about Cheney or the need to not cut the taxes on the "super wealthy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 17, 2011 Share Posted April 17, 2011 http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56454/latest The Republicans boasted a heroic accomplishment: slashing $38.5 billion from the budget, purportedly the largest cuts in history. But the cake was made from sawdust. Strip away the gimmicks and shine a light on the shadows, and it turns out the real cuts amounted to $352 million, or less than 1 percent of what was promised. Entitlements, he [Obama] admits, are gobbling up the budget; they must be “on the table.” But even as he puts the plates on the table with one hand, he removes them with the other, insisting his cooks can save the meal with price controls and rationing. And if that doesn’t work, twelve years and three presidential terms from now, a series of fictional “failsafes” will kick in and some magical commission will genie-blink even more fictional cuts. As for shared sacrifice, it is hard to find any in his proposal. Six out of ten U.S. households receive more from the government than they pay in taxes. If “shared sacrifice” is the standing order of the day, where is theirs? The president suggests that repealing Bush’s tax cuts will save the day. But the vast bulk of those cuts go to people making less than $250,000 a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 You mean like this guy? He avoided paying taxes on over $650,000.00 last year. Oh, the horror! His buddy Immelt must have sent some of those accountants from GE over to the WH to help him do his returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Uh, I've seen you spell "our" this way before. There is a difference. I'd explain it to you but you would just probably respond with something about Cheney or the need to not cut the taxes on the "super wealthy". Oh dear lord. And I am sure you would respond with Obama is a Socialist born in Kenya. Moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Oh dear lord. And I am sure you would respond with Obama is a Socialist born in Kenya. Moron. I firmly believe Obama is a socialist born in Hawaii and although not a moron, not very bright in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I firmly believe Obama is a socialist born in Hawaii and although not a moron, not very bright in many ways. Great. Thanks for response, I truly appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I firmly believe Obama is a socialist born in Hawaii and although not a moron, not very bright in many ways. Inept would be a better description of Mr. Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Great. Thanks for response, I truly appreciate it. "Our" you sure pBrain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Inept would be a better description of Mr. Obama. I genuinely don't think he's inept so much as he's in over his head. Way over his head. I mean, so far over his head that the idea of giving the reigns to Biden actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea provided he naps more and talks less. Interestingly, the thing that dramatically helped get him elected is probably the thing that will help contribute to his being a one-termer; the internet. The amount of crap he's had to backtrack on is amazing. The most recent soundbite from a couple of years ago was him trying to tell everyone that what the country can't afford to have politicians yelling that a certain bill is gonna kill grandma, etc. Two years later he addresses the budget deficit by telling everyone that the GOP is trying to kill grandma. :lol: Is it any wonder few people take him seriously as a president. It must have been great to be a politician when people had to find your history of stupid statements at the library on microfiche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts